Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36275

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew J. Kugler,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17772 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–333]

Power Authority of the State of New

York; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear

Power Plant; Exemption

I

The Power Authority of the State of

New York (the Licensee), also known as

the New York Power Authority is the

holder of Facility Operating License No.

DPR–59, which authorizes operation of

the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant (the facility). The license provides,

among other things, that the facility is

subject to all the rules, regulations and

orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission now or hereafter in effect.

The facility is a boiling-water reactor

located at the licensee’s site in Oswego

County, New York.

II

Section 70.24 of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, ‘‘Criticality

Accident Requirements,’’ requires that

each licensee authorized to possess

special nuclear material maintain a

criticality accident monitoring system in

each area in which such material is

handled, used, or stored. Subsections

(a)(1) and (a)(2) of 10 CFR 70.24 specify

detection and sensitivity requirements

that these monitors must meet.

Subsection (a)(1) also specifies that all

areas subject to criticality accident

monitoring must be covered by two

detectors. Subsection (a)(3) of 10 CFR

70.24 requires licensees to maintain

emergency procedures for each area in

which this licensed special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored and

requires that (1) the procedures ensure

that all personnel withdraw to an area

of safety upon the sounding of a

criticality accident monitor alarm, (2)

the procedures include drills to

familiarize personnel with the

evacuation plan, and (3) the procedures

designate responsible individuals for

determining the cause of the alarm and

placement of radiation survey

instruments in accessible locations for

use in such an emergency. Subsection

(b)(1) of 10 CFR 70.24 requires licensees

to provide the means of identifying

quickly any personnel who have

received a dose of 10 rads or more.

Subsection (b)(2) of 10 CFR 70.24

requires licensees to maintain personnel

decontamination facilities,

arrangements for a physician and other

medical personnel qualified to handle

radiation emergencies, and

arrangements for the transportation of

contaminated individuals to treatment

facilities outside the site boundary.

Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 70.24 exempts

Part 50 licensees from the requirements

of paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 70.24 for

special nuclear material used or to be

used in the reactor. Subsection (d) of 10

CFR 70.24 states that any licensee that

believes that there is good cause why it

should be granted an exemption from all

or part of 10 CFR 70.24 may apply to the

Commission for such an exemption and

shall specify the reasons for the relief

requested.

III

The special nuclear material that

could be assembled into a critical mass

at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant is in the form of nuclear fuel. The

quantity of special nuclear material

other than fuel that is stored on site in

any given location is small enough to

preclude achieving a critical mass. The

Commission’s technical staff has

evaluated the possibility of an

inadvertent criticality of the nuclear fuel

at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant and has determined that it is

extremely unlikely that such an

accident will occur if the licensees meet

the following seven criteria:

1. Only three boiling-water reactor

new fuel assemblies are allowed out of

a shipping cask or a storage rack at one

time;

2. The k-effective does not exceed

0.95, at a 95-percent probability, 95-

percent confidence level, in the event

that the fresh fuel storage racks are filled

with fuel of the maximum permissible

U–235 enrichment and flooded with

pure water;

3. If optimum moderation occurs at

low moderator density, the k-effective

does not exceed 0.98, at a 95-percent

probability, 95-percent confidence level,

in the event that the fresh fuel storage

racks are filled with fuel of the

maximum permissible U–235

enrichment and flooded with a

moderator at the density corresponding

to optimum moderation;

4. The k-effective does not exceed

0.95, at a 95-percent probability, 95-

percent confidence level, in the event

that the spent fuel storage racks are

filled with fuel of the maximum

permissible U–235 enrichment and

flooded with pure water;

5. The quantity of special nuclear

material, other than nuclear fuel, stored

on-site in any given area is less than the

quantity necessary for a critical mass;

6. Radiation monitors, as required by

General Design Criterion (GDC) 63, are

provided in fuel storage and handling

areas to detect excessive radiation levels

and to initiate appropriate safety

actions; and

7. The maximum nominal U–235

enrichment is limited to 5.0 weight

percent.

By letter dated April 24, 1998, the

licensee requested an exemption from

10 CFR 70.24. In this request, the

licensee addressed the seven criteria

previously stated. The licensee stated

that James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant does not analyze optimum

moderation conditions as addressed in

Criteria 3 above, but has used a standard

industry practice by implementing

administrative and physical controls in

accordance with General Electric

Service Information Letter 152,

‘‘Criticality margins for the Storage of

New Fuel.’’ To preclude the existence of

an optimum moderation condition in

the new fuel storage vault area, the

following controls are used: the new

fuel storage vault is equipped with

drains; the pre-fire plans have been

updated to prevent the use of fire

fighting foam or fire house streams in a

fog pattern during the storage and

transfer of new nuclear fuel; and the

new fuel storage vault plugs are

installed during prolonged work delays.

The staff has found this practice

acceptable.

The Commission’s technical staff has

reviewed the licensee’s submittal and

has determined that James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant meets

the criteria for prevention of inadvertent

criticality.Therefore, the staff has

determined that it is extremely unlikely

that an inadvertent criticality will occur

in the handling of special nuclear

materials or in their storage areas at the

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant.

The purpose of the criticality

monitors required by 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. The staff has determined that it

is extremely unlikely that such an

accident could occur. Although James

A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant is

not licensed to GDC 63, the licensee has

radiation monitors consistent with the

standards of GDC 63 in fuel storage and

handling areas. These monitors will
36276 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

alert personnel to excessive radiation

levels and allow them to initiate

appropriate safety actions. The low

probability of an inadvertent criticality,

together with the licensee’s adherence

to GDC 63 standards, constitutes good

cause for granting an exemption to the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24.

IV

The Commission has determined that

pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

endanger life or property or the common

defense and security, and is otherwise

in the public interest. Therefore, the

Commission hereby grants the licensee

an exemption from the requirements of

10 CFR 70.24 for the James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not

result in any significant adverse

environmental impact (63 FR 34205).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June 1998

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17611 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–9]

Notice of Issuance of Amendment to

Materials License SNM–2504, Public

Service Company of Colorado, Fort St.

Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

issued Amendment 5 to Materials

License No. SNM–2504 held by the

Public Service Company of Colorado

(PSCo) for the receipt, possession,

storage, and transfer of spent fuel at the

Fort St. Vrain (FSV) independent spent

fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located

in Weld County, Colorado. The

amendment is effective as of the date of

issuance.

By application dated November 25,

1997, PSCo requested an amendment to

revise Materials License SNM–2504 and

the Technical Specifications for the FSV

ISFSI to (1) replace 10 CFR 50 Program

references with stand-alone ISFSI

program references due to the

termination of the FSV 10 CFR part 50

license, (2) delete references to

previously authorized material that is

not stored at the ISFSI, and (3) revise

the Technical Specifications to

accurately reflect the current ISFSI

activities.

This amendment complies with the

standards and requirements of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules

and regulations. The Commission has

made appropriate findings as required

by the Act and the Commission’s rules

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I,

which are set forth in the license

amendment.

In accordance with 10 CFR

72.46(b)(2), a determination has been

made that the amendment does not

present a genuine issue as to whether

public health and safety will be

significantly affected. Therefore, the

publication of a notice of proposed

action and an opportunity for hearing or

a notice of hearing is not warranted.

Notice is hereby given of the right of

interested persons to request a hearing

by July 31, 1998, on whether the action

should be rescinded or modified.

The Commission has determined that

the issuance of the amendment will not

result in any significant environmental

impact and that, pursuant to 10 CFR

51.22(c)(10)(ii), an environmental

assessment need not be prepared in

connection with issuance of the

amendment.

Documents related to this action are

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William F. Kane,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–17610 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251]

Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulation

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41 for the

Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4,

respectively, issued to the Florida

Power and Light Company (the

licensee).

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s application dated March

5, 1998, for exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4)

regarding submission of revisions to the

updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR). Under the proposed exemption,

the licensee would schedule updates to

a single, unified FSAR for the two units

based on the refueling cycle of Unit 4

and at intervals not to exceed 24

months.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The Code of Federal Regulations, 10

CFR 50.71(e)(4), requires licensees to

submit updates to their FSAR annually

or within 6 months after each refueling

outage providing that the interval

between successive updates does not

exceed 24 months. Since Units 3 and 4

share a common FSAR, the licensee

must update the same document

annually or within 6 months after a

refueling outage for either unit. The

underlying purpose of the rule was to

relieve licensees of the burden of filing

annual FSAR revisions while assuring

that such revisions are made at least

every 24 months. The Commission

reduced the burden, in part, by

permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR

revisions 6 months after refueling

outages for its facility, but did not

provide for multiple unit facilities

sharing a common FSAR in the rule.

Rather, the Commission stated: ‘‘With

respect to the concern about multiple

facilities sharing a common FSAR,

licensees will have maximum flexibility

for scheduling updates on a case-by-case

basis.’’ 57 FR 39355 (1992). Allowing

the exemption would maintain the

updated FSAR current within 24

months of the last revision.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that it involves

administrative activities unrelated to

plant operation.

The proposed action will not result in

an increase in the probability or

consequences of accidents or result in a

change in occupational exposure or

offsite dose. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological impacts

associated with the proposed action.

The proposed action will not result in

a change in nonradiological plant

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.